在 2022/9/24 AM2:51, Bjorn Helgaas 写道:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:46:09PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>> 在 2022/9/23 AM1:36, Bjorn Helgaas 写道:
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 08:10:35PM +0800, Shuai Xue wrote:
>
>>>> +static struct device_attribute dwc_pcie_pmu_cpumask_attr =
>>>> +__ATTR(cpumask, 0444, dwc_pcie_pmu_cpumask_show, NULL);
>>>
>>> DEVICE_ATTR_RO()?
>
>> DEVICE_ATTR_RO may a good choice. But does it fit the code style to use
>> DEVICE_ATTR_RO in drivers/perf? As far as know, CCN, CCI, SMMU,
>> qcom_l2_pmu use "struct device_attribute" directly.
>
> DEVICE_ATTR_RO is just newer, and I think CCN, CCI, SMMU, etc. would
> be using it if they were written today. Of course, the drivers/perf
> maintainers may have a different opinion :)
Well, you are right, I will use DEVICE_ATTR_RO instead :)
>
>>> I think every caller of dwc_pcie_pmu_read_dword() makes the same check
>>> and prints the same message; maybe the message should be moved inside
>>> dwc_pcie_pmu_read_dword()?
>>>
>>> Same with dwc_pcie_pmu_write_dword(); moving the message there would
>>> simplify all callers.
>>
>> I would like to wrap dwc_pcie_pmu_{write}_dword out, use
>> pci_{read}_config_dword and drop the snaity check of return value as
>> Jonathan suggests. How did you like it?
>
> Sounds good. Not sure the error checking is worthwhile since
> pci_read_config_dword() really doesn't return meaningful errors
> anyway.
>
>>>> +static struct dwc_pcie_info_table *pmu_to_pcie_info(struct pmu *pmu)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct dwc_pcie_info_table *pcie_info;
>>>> + struct dwc_pcie_pmu *pcie_pmu = to_pcie_pmu(pmu);
>>>> +
>>>> + pcie_info = container_of(pcie_pmu, struct dwc_pcie_info_table, pcie_pmu);
>>>> + if (pcie_info == NULL)
>>>> + pci_err(pcie_info->pdev, "Can't get pcie info\n");
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be possible to get here for a pmu with no pcie_info, and
>>> callers don't check for a NULL pointer return value before
>>> dereferencing it, so I guess all this adds is an error message before
>>> a NULL pointer oops? Not sure the code clutter is worth it.
>>
>> Do you mean to drop the snaity check of container_of?
>
> Yes. I'm suggesting that the NULL pointer oops itself has enough
> information to debug this problem, even without the pci_err().
I will drop the snaity check in next version.
Thank you for you valuable comments.
Best Regards,
Shuai
